Peoples Deposit Bank & Trust Co., Paris, Ky. v. United States
Cases that cite this one
27 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Masters v. Arend (9th Cir. 1963)
- De Masters v. Arend (9th Cir. 1963)
- Grant Foster and Foster Construction C.A., Intervenors-Appellants v. United States (2d Cir. 1959)
- Wilbur A. Sale v. United States (8th Cir. 1956)
- Local 174, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Nugent La Poma v. United States (9th Cir. 1956)
- United States v. Cedrone (District Court, N.D. New York 1975)
- United States of America and Bruce B. Mack Revenue Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Stanley M. Weingarden (6th Cir. 1973)
- United States v. Fisher (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1972)
- Justice v. United States (6th Cir. 1966)
- United States v. Bayard Edward Ryan (6th Cir. 1963)
- In re the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1963)
- United States v. Carey (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1963)
- Mcdermott v. John Baumgarth Company (7th Cir. 1961)
- J. E. Wall, District Director v. Calvin D. Mitchell (4th Cir. 1961)
- McDermott v. John Baumgarth Co. (7th Cir. 1961)
- Eberhart v. Broadrock Development Corp. (6th Cir. 1961)
- Secretary of the Treasury v. Superior Court (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1960)
- Secretario de Hacienda v. Tribunal Superior (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1960)
- In re Tax Liability of Grant Foster (District Court, S.D. New York 1958)
- US ALUMINUM SIDING CORPORATION v. Eshleman (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1958)
- Clifford O. Boren, Delta M. Boren and Clifford O. Boren Contracting Co., Inc. v. Lloyd M. Tucker, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service (9th Cir. 1957)
- Evelyn Hubner v. Lloyd M. Tucker, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service (9th Cir. 1957)
- Application of the United States, for an Order Compelling Earl J. Carroll, to Comply With an Internal Revenue Summons (2d Cir. 1957)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The appellant bank appeals from the District Court’s judgment requiring it to obey a summons issued by a special agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, in pursuance of section 3614 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 3614, to appear and produce for inspection .and examination certain books, records, papers, and memoranda of the bank evidencing transactions occurring in the years 1944, 1945, and 1946, relating to the tax liability of E. F. Prichard, Sr., Aliene Power Prichard, E. F. Prichard, Jr., and Lucy Prichard.
At the hearing on the District Court’s order directing the appellant bank to show cause why it should not be punished for contempt of court in failing to obey the summons, a special .agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue testified in substance, that from his investigation he had concluded that there was strong suspicion of a false or fraudulent tax return by E. F. Prichard, Sr., for a certain year or years prior to the statutory limitation. See sections 275, 276, Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 275, 276. The special agent was not obliged to disclose in detail the facts relative to his investigation and conclusion, nor was the District Court obliged to require proof of facts showing reasonable grounds to believe that the tax returns of E. F. Prichard, Sr., and others were false or fraudulent.
The testimony of the special agent clearly justified the District Court’s judgment requiring the appellant bank to obey the summons to appear and produce the books, records, papers, and memoranda in question. Section 3633, Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 3633. For the reasons stated in the opinion below, D.C., 112 F.Supp. 720, the judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.